2009-11-19 05:24:02

by Stephen Rothwell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

Hi Borislav,

Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree. So, Rusty, I
guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
depends on it).

--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

Attachments:
(No filename) (633.00 B)
 (No filename) (198.00 B)
 Download all attachments

2009-11-19 06:06:51

by Borislav Petkov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:23:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
> 4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
> ("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
> 2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
> style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
> patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree. So, Rusty, I
> guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
> depends on it).

yes, we agreed I should pick up this patch. Rusty?

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

2009-11-19 06:56:44

by Rusty Russell

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the edac-amd tree with the rr tree

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:36:48 pm Borislav Petkov wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 04:23:54PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Today's linux-next merge of the edac-amd tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c because commit
> > 4de1ce0c99ff838090d3b57cab8bc6eeb303dda5
> > ("cpumask:amd64_edac-cpumask_t-remove") from the rr tree and commit
> > 2fd9af91b92c10e58993f9eb70300fdff32698fb ("cpumask: use modern cpumask
> > style in drivers/edac/amd64_edac.c") from the edac-amd tree are the same
> > patch but there are further changes in the edac-amd tree. So, Rusty, I
> > guess you can drop that patch (unless something later in the rr tree
> > depends on it).
>
> yes, we agreed I should pick up this patch. Rusty?

Thanks!

Rusty.